6 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

Quantum of Solace has a lot going for it: A solid plot, great performances, and not much to insult the intelligence of the viewer.

On the other hand the camera work (shaky cam, too many tight shots and very few long shots in the action sequences) and the editing were just atrocious. Horrible. The worst ever in a Bond film, IMO.

Also, the lack of longer length establishing shots when in beautiful locations was a bit frustrating. Just when a location shot came up and you started to go, "Wow," the shot ended. Some of the shots on location might as well have been on studio lots and soundstages the shots were so tight (and did not show off the location). Why spend the money to go on location like that if you're not going to fully utilize the location?

The other thing was whenever there was a brief moment of character interaction (like the cave scene) it just left most viewers wanting more. More character development, more chances to breathe (and give the movie a better sense of pacing).

There's a great movie in there somewhere, but it got lost in the nearly non-stop action and shaky cam/quick edit style.

Honestly - did the editors work as editors for trailers recently? Because the action sequences were edited the way trailers are edited. Like I've said - it was edited like a movie aimed at the ADD crowd!

So I give it a 7 out of 10 - but it could easily have been a 9 out of 10. That's a shame, really.

[dodge]

Yesterday plankattack bemoaned the bickering extremities over QoS and wondered if he should have returned here after a long absence. I expect he'll find in this well-written post something a lot closer to the debating ideals that he values.I was glad to read it too. Your frankness in acknowledging the film's undeniable weaknesses have finally persuaded me to have another look. Cheers.

[avl]

I think the problem remains that the "weaknesses" are genuinely not undeniable. They are a question of taste.

[dodge]

I think the problem remains that the "weaknesses" are genuinely not undeniable. They are a question of taste.

That can be said of anything, I suppose, including PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. And please don't think I'm being sarcastic--I'm not. Within this site's paramaters, where we generally don't preface our remarks with 'imo' or'imho' but rather, as Harmsway would have it, come on with both lips blazing, I use the word 'undeniably'.

The need for speed at any cost did, in fact, cost. A lot. Too much, imho.

[JimmyBond]

I think the problem remains that the "weaknesses" are genuinely not undeniable. They are a question of taste.

I agree, using a word like that is really a bit unfair. I watch the film and feel it has no weaknesses, so how can they be undeniable if I deny they exist?

[plankattack]

Dodge is right - this is my kind of thread. I don't think it's the greatest Bond film ever, but I do believe it's a good one, which will, when it joins the canon rather than being the "latest" improve with age.

That being said, it's got its share of weaknesses (which Bond doesn't?), but how you feel about those weaknesses all depend on your personal expectations from the experience. Could the action sequences been constructed better? (and I say constructed to cover everything from editing, to cinematography, to execution) - yeah. The foot chase has been done before and better, and the boat chase needs clarity. While I love the stylistic touches of the action at Tosca (silence on the soundtrack for example) I feel that it comes up just a little short - again a sequence that had the potential to have been iconic within the series.

On the plus, another strong performance from the lead (though you have to go back a good few years to find the last one where the lead was poor), a story about our hero that followed smoothly followed on from CR, and a Bond film that had a unique style (not a bad thing in my eyes, but I know how many want certain touches that to them are unique to the Bond experience). As I've constantly said, you can't keep making the same film over and over again.

I think it is, and purposefully so, a different kind of Bond-film, but unlike many, I never doubted I was watching a Bond. I've said, I'm all for different, and I do feel that if some of the advance pr had alluded to that, that there wouldn't be such a sense of genuine disappointment experienced by many here.

OHMSS didn't originally go down well, because back then, it was a "different" Bond film, but it's reputation over time has improved. I think QoS will age the same way, and once it's surrounded on either side by more "conventional" Bond-film trappings and stylistic touches, many that aren't happy now will warm up to it. Also, I'm not trying to make an inflammatory statement here, but those who were unhappy with the action sequences, which if you read across the threads seems to be the major issue being taken, then you know what? They'll move on when the next action movie comes out. I do believe that those who care about the character, even if they don't care much for the film right now, will warm up to it, at least a little. Because while the action is too frenetic, the plot most certainly isn't - not following the boat chase, well, that might be the fault of the film, but following the story, well, I won't go there - this is a nice thread!!

What QoS has done has got all of us talking (good), and is making a bag of money (yes, that is a good thing - a business, which Bonds are, have to thrive to survive). And I know this, in my own minute to the millionth degree customer survey - my non-Bond friends have all enjoyed it. And for better for worse, how they (non-Bond fans, that is!) feel will have far more to do with the series' longevity than our fandom opinions.

Edited by plankattack, 20 November 2008 - 06:50 PM.

[DR76]

So I give it a 7 out of 10 - but it could easily have been a 9 out of 10. That's a shame, really.

I feel the same way.

OHMSS didn't originally go down well, because back then, it was a "different" Bond film, but it's reputation over time has improved. I think QoS will age the same way, and once it's surrounded on either side by more "conventional" Bond-film trappings and stylistic touches, many that aren't happy now will warm up to it.

Perhaps you'll be proven right. Perhaps not. But my problems with "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" has less to do with the lack of conventional Bond trappings and more to do with the film's editing style and pacing. Along with a few unecessary characters.

Edited by DR76, 20 November 2008 - 10:15 PM.